Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies ......Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating...

⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Marketing, Kedge BusinessSchool, Domaine de Luminy, Rue Antoine Bourdelle, 13009 Marseille, France.

E-mail address: [email protected] (O. Petit).

www.elsevier

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.0041094-9968© 2019 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. dba Marketing EDGE. All rights reserved.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirectJournal of Interactive Marketing 45 (2019) 42–61

.com/locate/intmar

Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies IntoMultisensory Online Experience

Olivia Petit a,⁎ Carlos Velasco b& Charles Spence c

a Department of Marketing, Kedge Business School, Domaine de Luminy, Rue Antoine Bourdelle, 13009 Marseille, Franceb Department of Marketing, BI Norwegian Business School, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway

c Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Tinbergen Building, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK

Available online 17 December 2018

Abstract

People are increasingly purchasing (e.g., food, clothes) and consuming (e.g., movies, courses) online where, traditionally, the sensoryinteraction has mostly been limited to visual, and to a lesser extent, auditory inputs. However, other sensory interfaces (e.g., including touchscreens, together with a range of virtual, and augmented solutions) are increasingly being made available to people to interact online. Moreover,recent progress in the field of human–computer interaction means that online environments will likely engage more of the senses and become moreconnected with offline environments in the coming years. This expansion will likely coincide with an increasing engagement with the consumer'smore emotional senses, namely touch/haptics, and possibly even olfaction. Forward-thinking marketers and researchers will therefore need toappropriate the latest tools/technologies in order to deliver richer online experiences for tomorrow's consumers. This review is designed to help theinterested reader better understand what sensory marketing in a digital context can offer, thus hopefully opening the way for further research anddevelopment in the area.© 2019 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. dba Marketing EDGE. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Consumer behavior; Digital marketing; Sensory marketing; HCI; Online environment

COLOURED, STEREOSCOPIC FEELY. WITH SYNCHRO-NIZED SCENTORGAN ACCOMPANIMENT. “Take hold ofthose metal knobs on the arms of your chair,” whisperedLenina. “Otherwise you won't get any of the feely effects.”(Huxley 1932, p. 119)

Introduction

Who has not wondered, when browsing the website of anonline retailer, what one would look like wearing that newsweater, or what it might feel like against the skin; or perhapswhether those new Chinese noodles really would taste as goodas they look? Just imagine, for instance, how great it would be

if one could actually taste the dishes that one sees on Instagram,or feel the warmth of the virtual sand under your feet, not tomention smell the coconut oil, when viewing your friends'travel photos on Facebook. And who would not want you tovirtually embrace their partner before saying goodbye after aSkype call? The current lack of genuinely multisensoryinteraction with the online environment is undoubtedly amissed opportunity given that we are spending ever more of ourtime on the Internet (Statista 2016).

Digital interactive technologies (which enable the creationand/or manipulation of products on the screen), especiallysensory-enabling technologies (i.e., SETs, those that candeliver sensory inputs), can be helpful when, for instance, itcomes to creating a “webmosphere” (i.e., the consciousdesigning of web environments to create positive effects).These technologies can also help inform the consumer aboutthose other sensory properties of a product (e.g., its texture,smell, and possibly even taste) that are simply not available

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004&domain=pdf

[email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004




43O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 45 (2019) 42–61

currently in most (primarily visual) online environments(Childers et al. 2001; Eroglu, Machleit, and Davis 2001;Gallace et al. 2012; Hsieh et al. 2014; Kim and Forsythe 2008a;Rose et al. 2012; Song and Zinkhan 2008). SETs include boththose devices that are already widespread (such as headphonesand touch screens), as well as a whole host of other newtechnologies that have yet to be fully commercialized in thiscontext such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR),and even digital taste/smell interfaces.

We believe that marketers can do a much better job when itcomes to considering and integrating these various technologiesand their potential evolution to make the multisensory onlineexperience more engaging, immersive, informative, and, ulti-mately, enjoyable in the future. Doing so will likely helpcompanies to differentiate themselves from the competition in thecrowded online marketplace. Future research is therefore reallyneeded in order to better understand how SETs can be used toenhance the consumer experience (e.g., how immersed they are in“the experience” and how persuasive such experiences are) andnudge the latter's behaviors (e.g., how much do they choose tospend, and on what?).

The main objective of this article is therefore to introduce anew way of thinking about (digital-) sensory marketing. Thisnew approach focuses on the use of digital technologies inonline contexts, based on theories and concepts taken directlyfrom the growing field of sensory marketing research. We tryto bridge the gap between those researchers in sensory

Table 1Summary of common and new sensory-enabling technologies

Common interfaces N

Sense Means/cues Concepts MSight Screen: Font, icon,

picture, videos (colordepth, size, position,dynamic).

Mental imagery (Cian et al. 2014; Eelen et al.2013; Elder and Krishna 2012; Petit et al.2016)sensory congruency (Sunaga et al. 2016;Velasco et al. 2015; Velasco et al. 2016b;Woods and Spence 2016), interactivity (Songand Zinkhan 2008; Van Noort, Voorveld, andVan Reijmersdal 2012).

3Dviau

Hearing Headphones, loud-speaker (music,sound, jingle).

Sensory congruency (Hagtvedt and AdamBrasel 2016; Knoeferle et al. 2016).

MexausiU

Touch Mouse, touchscreen. Mental imagery (Shen et al. 2016),ownership (Brasel and Gips 2014), affect(Brasel and Gips 2015; Shen et al. 2016)

Vboacha

Smell X X MexinTM

marketing and those working in the field of human–computerinteraction (HCI). It is our belief that marketers need to betterfamiliarize themselves with the full range of SETs that areavailable while those working in HCI may benefit frommaking themselves aware of some of the potentially profitableuses that their technologies might one day permit (Velasco etal. 2018). In order to achieve these goals, we return to themain sensory marketing theories that can be used to helpunderstand consumer behavior in the online environment. Inthe next sections, we explain, based on theories and practices,how sensory information can be delivered more effectivelyonline by means of digital interfaces that have evolved themost in recent years (i.e., visual and haptic devices). We alsoillustrate how the latest advances in other SETs (e.g., inauditory, olfactory, and gustatory devices) can potentially beused to reinforce this communication and even suggest newmultisensory marketing strategies. We finish by providingsome ideas concerning potentially fruitful directions forfurther research (see Table 1 for a summary of thetechnology).

Theoretical Framework: What Does Sensory MarketingMean in the Online Environment?

According to the theory of embodied cognition, all cognitiveprocesses are grounded in bodily states and in the brain'ssensory modality-specific processing systems (Barsalou 2008;

ew sensory-enabling technologies

eans/cues Concepts-interactive view,rtual try-ons,gmented reality.

Mental imagery (Choi and Taylor 2014; Huang and Liao2017), telepresence/ immersion (Animesh et al. 2011;Klein 2003; Li et al. 2002; Nah et al. 2011; Yim et al.2017), enjoyment (Kim and Forsythe 2008a, b; Lee andChung 2008; Nah et al. 2011; Yim et al. 2017), flow(Animesh et al. 2011; Huang 2012; Huang and Liao2017; Jiang and Benbasat 2004; Nah et al. 2011; Novak,et al. 2000; Van Noort, Voorveld, and Van Reijmersdal2012), interactivity (Huang 2012; Yim et al. 2017); self-congruity (Merle et al. 2012), ownership (Brengman etal. 2018; Huang and Liao 2017), need for touch(Brengman et al. 2018; Choi and Taylor 2014),curiosity (Beck and Dominique Crié 2018).

ultisensoryperience withditory inputs (Foodmulator, Straw-likeser Interface).

Sensory congruency (Hashimoto et al. 2008; Ho et al.2013; Liu, Hannum, and Simons 2018)

ibrotactile interfaces,dy-grounded tactiletuators, mid-airptics.

Need for touch (Brasel and Gips 2014; Cano et al. 2017;Jin 2011), telepresence (Leithinger et al. 2014; Sallnäs,Rassmus-Gröhn, and Sjöström 2000), emotion (Rantalaet al. 2013), Midas touch effect (Haans and IJsselsteijn2009; Haans et al. 2014; Spapé et al. 2015).

ultisensoryperience with smellputs (Seasonraveler,etaCookie+).

Sensory congruency (Ranasinghe et al. 2018; Liu,Hannum, and Simons 2018).

44 O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 45 (2019) 42–61

Niedenthal et al. 2005). Thus, all consumer experiences arebased on the integration of sensory inputs that affect the latter'sjudgment and behavior (Krishna 2012). Therefore, by engagingthe consumers' senses more effectively, sensory marketingstrategies can potentially impact the decision-making process inthe store (Krishna 2012; Krishna and Aydınoğlu 2017; Spence2012; see Spence et al. 2014, for a review). However, onemight wonder what impact sensory marketing can really haveduring online shopping when interactions with the environmentare limited to a computer screen.

According to the theory of embodied cognition, cognitioncan be situated (i.e., operated directly on the real-worldenvironment, i.e., online embodiment), or decoupled from thereal-world environment (offline embodiment, Wilson 2002). Apriori, the options for communicating sensory information inthe online environment would appear to be rather limited. Afterall, it has traditionally not been possible to touch, smell, or tasteobjects over the Internet (see Gallace and Spence 2014, for areview). Thus, the online environment might be considered as acontext of offline embodiment, in which interactions with theworld occur only through digital interfaces. However, this doesnot mean that the senses stop affecting cognition in the onlineenvironment. In this context, cognitive activity is still supportedby modality-specific sensory systems (Niedenthal et al. 2005).

When consumers experience stimuli in the real-world (e.g.,eating potato chips), the brain captures perceptual, motor, andintrospective states relating to the various senses and integratesthem into multisensory representations that are stored inmemory (e.g., texture of the chips crunching between theteeth, Barsalou 2008; Papies and Barsalou 2015). Later, theexposure to product pictures (potato chips) in online stores cantrigger spontaneous perceptual re-enactments (i.e., embodiedmental simulations: think of this as a more automatic form ofmental imagery) of those multisensory representations (Chen,Papies, and Barsalou 2016; Petit et al. 2016). These perceptualre-enactments engage some of the same brain areas that wererecruited during the previous experiences which, in turn, canproduce similar sensations (Simmons, Martin, and Barsalou2005; Okajima et al. 2016).

Perceptual re-enactments have been observed in differentsenses. Seeing the picture of a given food or reading its namecan activate the olfactory and the gustatory cortices (Gonzálezet al. 2006; Simmons, Martin, and Barsalou 2005). Similarly,the sight of lip movements appears to stimulate the auditorycortex too (Calvert et al. 1997). A recent study also showed thatwatching the hand of someone else grasping food leads toactivations in motor-related brain areas (Basso et al. 2018).These studies suggest that through perceptual re-enactments,the consumer's senses might be stimulated online. Morespecifically, the perceptual re-enactments produced by imageson websites can serve to fill in the missing features of theproducts that are not physically present (this can be thought ofas perceptual completion, Pessoa and De Weerd 2003; Spenceand Deroy 2013). Thus, by viewing product-related images onwebsites, consumers might define sensory expectations, andeven offset their need for touch. We will see in the followingsessions that the new visual-enabling technologies might help

reinforce perceptual reenactments, notably, by improving thefeeling of immersion.

In addition to images, devices such as computers andsmartphones can facilitate auditory (via loudspeakers) andhaptic interactions (via touch screens and vibrations) with apositive effect on product evaluation. These sensory inputsmight also elicit perceptual re-enactments in other sensorymodalities. For example, Kitagawa and Igarashi (2005) usedsound to induce virtual touch sensations. They gave theimpression to their participants that their ears had been tickledby presenting the sound of a brush stroking the ear of a dummyhead. Several studies have also shown that hearing and touchcan be used to stimulate visual imagery (de Volder et al. 2001;Lacey et al. 2010). Although product pictures are generallypresent on websites, by broadcasting sounds, producingvibrations, and allowing consumers to zoom/rotate the imageswith their fingers, marketers might give them a better visualrepresentation. Moreover, these sensory inputs might facilitatemultisensory integration, and thus have a positive effect onvisual attention and search (Spence 2011).

Recent progress in HCI has also led to the suggestion thatmarketers might be able to benefit from new multisensory tools(including olfactory and even taste stimulation, Obrist et al.2016; Petit et al. 2015; Spence et al. 2017). Thus, it might notbe necessary to go via mental imagery in order to fill in themissing sensations in the online environment. The SETs offer aglimpse of a new “online” embodied environment, providingmultisensory experiences similar to those observed in the realworld. In the following sections, we show that the visual-enabling technologies are now able to improve perceptual re-enactments in the online environment with positive effects onboth consumer experience and product evaluation. Thereafter,we highlight how the other SETs (i.e., already haptic andauditory, and eventually potentially even olfactory andgustatory devices) are likely to improve the effects of visualdevices, while suggesting new forms of interaction with theconsumer online (see Table 2 for a summary of the research).

Visual-Enabling Technologies: A New Form of MentalImagery

Icons, pictures, font, and videos all constitute visual stimuli(and are key elements associated with a brand) that marketerscan adjust (in terms of the resolution, color, depth, size,position, etc.) over the Internet in order to improve consumerexperience. Moreover, it is currently possible to include 3Dobjects (see Fig. 1a, Algharabat et al. 2017) as well as to createVR environments (see Fig. 1b; Jin 2009). Visual-enablingtechnologies include larger views (super close-up; zoom in/out;enlargement), alternate views (e.g., views from 2 to 3 angles),3D-interactive view (views from every angle as a consumerdrags their mouse), and virtual try-ons (VTO). In addition, theyallow a consumer to zoom in on the product that they happen tobe interested in, to rotate it and, by so doing, view it from avariety of different angles (Kim and Forsythe 2008a). Inaddition, they can undoubtedly change the way in which theconsumer interacts with content online. They might be used to

Table 2Research summary on digital sensory marketing concepts and interfaces.

Sensory design Relevant literatureexamples

Key findings

Virtual experience 3D virtualenvironment

Animesh et al. (2011)Gabisch (2011)

Huang (2012)

Jin (2009)

Lee & Chung (2008)Nah et al. (2011)

Interactivity which the environment has a positive impact on telepresence and flow.Self-image congruence and perceived diagnosticity moderate the effects of virtual world onpurchase intent.Affective involvement has a more positive effect than flow on purchase intention in virtualworld.Modality richness and prior involvement positively impact shopping behavior in 3D virtualstores.Virtual shopping mall creates stronger quality assurance and enjoyment than ordinary mall.Virtual world increases telepresence and enjoyment with a positive effect on brand equity.Using a Virtual Fitting Room on a website increases curiosity about the product, intentionto patronize (online and offline) and intention to purchase (online and offline).AR has a positive effect on user experience that subsequently influences satisfaction andwillingness to buy.AR has a positive influence on novelty, immersion, enjoyment, and usefulness, resulting inpositive attitudes and purchase intentions.AR shopping app used at homes creates a close and intimate (rather than transactional)relationship with the brand.Users experience food textures by using a device generating a force on their teeth.Users virtually experience the sensations of drinking with straw trough pressure change inthe mouth, vibrations on the lips, and sound.The sensor produces electrical stimulations on the user’s tongue with the hope ofmanipulating the sourness.

AR environment Beck and Dominique Crié2018Poushneh &Vasquez-Parraga 2017Yim et al. (2017)

Scholz & Duffy (2018)

Force feedback Iwata et al. (2004)Audio-tactileinterface

Hashimoto et al. (2008)

Digital tasteinterface

Ranasinghe et al. (2017)

Product evaluation Visual features Christian et al. (2016)

Cian et al. (2014)

Eelen et al. (2013)Elder & Krishna (2012)Gvili et al. (2017)Shen & Sengupta (2012)

3rd (vs. 1st) person perspective decreased the mental representation, actual consumption,and willingness to pay for unhealthy food.Perceived movement evoked by pictures stimulate dynamic imagery that positively affectsconsumer engagement.Monitoring orientation cues affects product evaluation and choice.Product orientation (handle leftwards vs. rightwards) affect purchase intent.Evoked motion in food pictures enhance projected taste and freshness.Occupying the dominant (vs. non-dominant) hand impairs the ease of simulation whichleads consumers to lower evaluations of the product.Virtual product control has a positive impact on perceived diagnosticity and flow.Virtual product experience increases telepresence with a positive impact on purchase intent.Rotation in online product presentation impacts perceived information quantity and moodwith a positive effect on attitude, and purchase intent.The quality of image used to construct a virtual mirror play an important role in productevaluation.Haptic imagery and sense of self-location during virtual try-on positively impact flowexperience.Virtual try-on reduces product risk and increases the entertainment value of the onlineshopping process.Personalized (vs. non-personalized) virtual try-on elicits higher utilitarian value andpurchase intent.Touch screen (vs. mouse interface) increases the number of alternatives searched, and leadsthe consumer to more tangible attributes and internal sources of information in the choiceprocess.Touch screen (vs. mouse interface) enhances the choice of a hedonic option over autilitarian one.Sound feedback (vs. no sound) from material products during virtual trial increase thewillingness to pay.Ultrasound waves with modulation frequencies (16Hz, 250Hz) create textiles and wind/breeze sensations.Haptic interface allowing the user to manipulate objects remotely.

3D productvisualization

Jiang & Benbasat (2004)Li et al. (2002)Park et al. (2008)

Virtual try-on Cho & Schwarz (2012)

Huang & Lio (2017)

Kim & Forsythe (2008a, b)

Merle et al. (2012)

Touch screen Brasel & Gips (2015)

Shen et al. (2016)

Auditory features Ho et al. (2013)

Mid-air haptic Obrist et al. (2013)

Leithinger et al. (2014)

(continued on next page)


Table 2 (continued)

Sensory design Relevant literatureexamples

Key findings

Shapeshiftingdisplay

Need for touch 3D productvisualization

Choi & Taylor (2014) For geometric products: 3D product image have higher persuasive effects than 2D productimage for both high- and low-NFT consumers. For material products, 3D visualization onlyhave a positive effect for low-NFT consumers. Mental imagery mediates the persuasiveeffects of the 3D versus 2D format.Touch screen (vs. mouse interface) elicits stronger feelings of perceived product ownership,with stronger effects for material products.AR product manipulation results in higher levels of perceived ownership, with strongereffect for material products.Force feedback (vs. no force feedback) elicits more positive product evaluation, test-drivingexperience, and brand-self connection for consumers high in instrumental NFT.Product rotation and scrunch increase use engagement for material products, regardlesstheir NFT.

Touch screen Brasel & Gips (2014)

Augmented reality Brengman et al. (2018)

Force feedback Jin (2011)

Tactile features Cano et al. (2017)

Midas touch effect Force feedback Sällnas (2000) Haptic force feedback increases perceived social presence.Vibrotactile touch (vs. no touch) does not provide more helping behaviour.

Helping behaviour was higher in the vibrotacile (vs. no) touch condition when participantswho initiated the virtual touch knew the purpose of the study in advance.Squeeze is better to communicate unpleasant and aroused emotion, while finger touch isbetter for pleasant and relaxed emotion.Vibrotactile feedback affects generosity (increasing an offer) but not direct compliance(accepting an offer).Conversations with a remote partner using huggable human-shaped device (vs. mobilephone) reduces the cortisol levels (stress hormone).

Vibrotactilefeedback

Haans & IJsselsteijn(2009)Haans et al. (2014)

Rantala et al. (2013)

Human-shapedcushion

Spapé et al. (2015)

Sumioka et al. (2013)

Sensory congruency Visual features Sunaga et al. (2016)

Velasco et al. (2015)

Velasco et al. (2016b.)

Visual search is facilitated when light (dark) coloured products are positioned in the upper(lower) shelf positions.Semantic congruence between colour (e.g., red) and flavour (e.g., tomato) facilitates visualsearch.Rounder designs are evaluated more often as sweeter than angular designs.Specific colours (e.g., red, green, black, and white) can help to communicate basic tastes(e.g., sweet, sour, bitter, and salty).Low (vs. high) sound frequency leads people to fixate on dark (vs. light) objects faster andlonger and increase purchase intent.Semantic congruence between sound (e.g., popping sound) and product (e.g., bottle ofChampagne) facilitates visual searchAerosol sprays are perceived as being more pleasant (but significantly less forceful) whenthe high-frequency sounds is attenuated.Potato chips are perceived as being both crisper and fresher when the high frequency

Auditory features

Woods & Spence (2016)

Hagtvedt andBrasel 2016Knoeferle et al.(2016)Spence & Zampini (2007)

Zampini & Spence (2004)


facilitate consumers' perceptual re-enactments, and help themto fill in the missing sensory inputs (Spence and Deroy 2013).In the next subsections, we discuss how these new forms ofinteraction through visual-enabling are likely (or not) toimprove the experience and product evaluation.

Embodied Online Experience

Much of the research has demonstrated that carefullyconsidered visual features can make the online experiencemore immersive, aesthetically pleasing, and enjoyable (Bölte etal. 2017; Childers et al. 2001; Eroglu et al. 2001; Rose et al.2012; Varadarajan et al. 2010). Li, Daugherty, and Biocca(2001, p. 14) developed the concept of virtual experience torepresent “psychological and emotional states that consumersundergo while interacting with products in a 3-D environ-ment”. According to a recent review by Javornik (2016a),

visual-enabling technologies have been used to improve webatmospheres. They may create a sensation of immersion (ortelepresence), detaching people from the physical reality, thusabsorbing them in their virtual experience (Animesh et al. 2011;Klein 2003; Li, Daugherty, and Biocca 2002; Nah,Eschenbrenner, and Dewester 2011; Yim, Chu, and Sauer2017). It has been argued that 3D environments might deliverhigher levels of enjoyment than 2D or physical environments(Kim and Forsythe 2008b; Lee and Chung 2008; Nah et al.2011). Crucially, this seemingly more enjoyable experienceprovided by virtual and augmented reality was found to have apositive impact on both purchase intentions and on theconsumers' willingness to pay (Animesh et al. 2011; Beckand Crié 2018; Gabisch 2011; Jin 2009; Poushneh andVasquez-Parraga 2017). Thus, the virtual environment seemsto provide a fuller experience to the consumer. From the pointof view of the theory of embodied cognition, this would lead to

Fig. 1. (a.) 3D product presentation, Algharabat et al. (2017); (b.) Spokes-avatars in a virtual retail store, Jin (2009); (c.) Personalized virtual try-on: Augmented-reality interactive technology, Huang and Lio (2017).


considering the online environment as a place of onlineembodiment, in which the perceptual, motor, and introspectivestates across the various senses should be considered in detail(Barsalou 2008; Niedenthal et al. 2005).

It should, however, be noted that to date the research hasmainly highlighted the impact of visual-enabling technologieson the affective reactions to the online experience (see Javornik2016a). Their effects on the flow, a cognitive state experiencedduring online navigation, in which consumers are completelyabsorbed in their activity, are rather mixed (Animesh et al.2011; Huang 2012, Huang and Liao 2017; Jiang and Benbasat2004; Novak, Hoffman, and Yung 2000; Van Noort, Voorveld,and Van Reijmersdal 2012). These mixed effects on theconsumer's cognitive state is all the more problematic becausethat utilitarian value (i.e., functional benefit) is more stronglyrelated to preference toward the Internet retailer and onlinebuying than hedonic value (i.e., experiential benefits, Bridgesand Florsheim 2008; Overby and Lee 2006). However, thisdoes not necessarily mean that the impact of sensory marketingon consumer behavior is limited in the online environment, butthat it does not necessarily go through the same channels asthose used in the physical environment. In the next subsection,we show how visual-enabling technologies are likely to affectonline behavior by proposing new ways to interact with theproduct.

Embodied Online Product Evaluation

As noted earlier, seeing a picture of an object reactivates, atleast in part, the same brain areas that were mobilized during theprevious perceptual episodes (Barsalou 2008; Simmons, Martin,and Barsalou 2005). Thus, simply by displaying a picture of afood on the screen, the wily marketer may be able to stimulatemental images of its texture, smell, and even flavor that canfacilitate the customer's evaluation of the food (Elder andKrishna 2012; Krishna, Cian, and Sokolova 2016; Petit et al.2017; Spence and Deroy 2013; Okajima et al. 2016). In order tohelp consumers mentally simulate interactions with productsduring their online experiences, marketers can change the way inwhich the product image is presented (Krishna and Schwarz2014). For example, they may want to favor the use of dynamic(over static) images of the product (Cian, Krishna, and Elder2014; Gvili et al. 2017; see Okajima et al. 2016, for a review).

By using dynamic images, marketers can increase theconsumer's ability to generate mental simulations of transfor-mation, rotation, and reorganizations of the imagined productwith a positive effect on its evaluation (Cian, Krishna, andElder 2014). At the cerebral level, Basso et al. (2018) found thatwatching videos featuring a hand grasping food (vs. object)leads to an increase of activity in somatosensory-motor brainareas. Neural activity in these areas is often seen when grasping


objects and could potentially facilitate the simulation of foodconsumption (Chen et al. 2016; Vingerhoets 2014). Similar todynamic images, mental simulations might also be stimulatedsimply by orienting a product on the screen in the direction ofthe hand that is normally used when grasping (e.g., Eelen,Dewitte, and Warlop 2013; Elder and Krishna 2012; Shen andSengupta 2012), or by changing the perspective from which aproduct is viewed (Basso et al. 2018; Christian et al. 2016).Therefore, one might expect that simply by capitalizing on suchvisual manipulations, the marketer could make a customer'sonline product evaluation more immersive, despite theseparation necessarily created by viewing a product on a screen.

The new visual-enabling technologies are likely to enhancethis sensation of immersion. 3D images give the user thefeeling of being able to interact with the product itself, andthus stimulate mental simulations of product interaction (Li,Daugherty, and Biocca 2001). Such effects of 3D images onproduct evaluation can be reinforced by allowing the user tospin/rotate the product, thus enabling them to examine theproduct from all possible angles. For instance, in one study,Park, Stoel, and Lennon (2008) displayed two pairs of khakitrousers (rotating vs. non-rotating) on a website. They foundthat the rotating version increased perceived informationquantity among the participants with a knock-on positiveeffect on attitude and purchase intentions.

Jai, O'Boyle, and Fang (2014) analyzed the effect of format(static, zooming and rotate views) of pictures of dresses onbrain activity during the encoding (visual presentation period)and decision processes. During the decision process, womenwere instructed to create a mental image of the product and toindicate how much money they wanted to bid for the dress.They found that during the encoding period, image zooming(vs. static images) led to higher activations in the primary visualcortex, but did not lead to higher modulation in motor areas. Assuch, these results suggest that image zooming provides moredetailed visual information than static images, but does notstimulate mental simulations of grasping movements. They alsofailed to find any difference between both images during thedecision process. By contrast, during this period, rotationvideos (vs. static images) led to higher activities in visual andpremotor cortices, suggesting that participants had more vividmental images of product interactions in their mind. In thiscondition, participants also present more activity in those areasknown to code the reward value of stimuli (caudate nucleus andputamen), and self-related mental processing (precuneus) areas(Fransson and Marrelec 2008; Knutson et al. 2007). Theseresults suggest that rotation view might promote a better senseof self-referencing with a higher level of product preference.

Self-referencing can also be improved by providing a morepersonalized virtual experience. VTO allows the shopper to usean avatar, create their own virtual models based on their facialcharacteristics, or else even to use a “virtual mirror” (createdwith their own digital photo uploaded to a retailer's Website,Pantano and Naccarato 2010; or by using augmented-realityinteractive technology, see Fig. 1c, Huang and Liao 2017). Theresearch suggests that VTO can provide reliable informationregarding the fit and how a product might look on the potential

consumer (Cho and Schwarz 2012; Javornik 2016b; Kim andForsythe 2008b; Merle, Senecal, and St-Onge 2012). Cho andSchwartz highlighted that VTO positively impacts people'sproduct evaluation, especially when the latter upload theirfavorite (rather than just a conveniently available) pictures ofthemselves. Similarly, Merle, Senecal, and St-Onge 2012reported that personalized (vs. non-personalized) VTO im-proves self-congruity and the confidence of consumers in theirproduct choices. More recently, Huang and Liao (2017) alsodemonstrated that VTO can have a positive impact on flowexperience, by affecting perceived ownership, and self-explorative engagement. Therefore, VTO might help reduce“bracketing,” a trend to buy multiple products, select the bestone, and then returning the rest (Sharma 2017). However, whilethese new visual-enabling technologies offer a more directinteraction with the product than 2D visuals, it is not certainthat this interaction is sufficient to allow consumers to evaluateall the products. Some products may have material propertiesdifficult to evaluate without a real touch, this point is discussedin the next subsection.

Need for Touch for Visual Evaluation

Researchers have demonstrated that some people feel a needto touch the product (or imagine touching it) in order to beconfident in their choices (Peck, Barger, and Webb 2013; Peck,and Childers 2003a, b; Peck and Shu 2009; Shu and Peck 2011).However, the need for touch (NFT) varies depending on thetactile properties of the products themselves. Some products, forinstance, have more salient geometric (e.g., shape, size, andstructure) and other material (e.g., texture, temperature, andweight) properties than do others (see Choi and Taylor 2014;Lederman 1974; Spence and Gallace 2008). An image and/or awritten description of the haptic properties might therefore besufficient to evaluate a product with more salient geometricproperties (e.g., a smartphone). However, consumers might needto touch a product with more salient material properties (e.g., asweater) in order to evaluate it, especially those consumers witha high NFT (McCabe and Nowlis 2003; Peck and Childers2003a, b). Thus, some haptic dimensions might be easier tosimulate than others in an online environment.

Visual-enabling technologies have been shown to enhancethe ability of consumers to imagine touching and trying-onproducts on a shopping website (Li, Daugherty, and Biocca2001; 2002). Thus, these technologies appear interesting as far asaddressing the NFT of consumers in virtual environments isconcerned (Peck and Childers 2003a, b). For instance, Choi andTaylor (2014) demonstrated that 3D images can stimulate mentalimagery with a knock-on positive impact on persuasion. In theirstudy, websites with 2D and 3D formats were developed in orderto advertise two products with different haptic properties: awatch (geometric properties) and a jacket (material properties).The results indicated that 3D advertising for the watch createdmore vivid mental images with a positive effect on attitudetoward the brand, purchase intentions, and intention to revisit thewebsite as compared to the 2D advertising. However, for thejacket, 3D advertising only exerted a positive effect on product


evaluation for those people with a lower NFT. Thus, consumerswith a high NFT might need to physically contact materialproducts online in order to facilitate their decision-making. Thisphysical contact could be provided by the new haptic-enablingtechnologies, as discussed below.

Haptic-Enabling Technologies: A New Form of PhysicalContact

While consumers cannot literally touch the products thatthey see online, they normally do interact haptically withmultiple interfaces already (e.g., mice and touch screens).These haptic interfaces might compensate for the lack of actualtouch in those who feel a high NFT. Moreover, several deviceshave already been developed (though are still not widespread)to improve haptic interactions through the Internet, such asvibrotactile interfaces (Kim et al. 2013), body-grounded tactileactuators (tapping on, squeezing, and twisting, Stanley andKuchenbecker 2011), or even mid-air haptics (Ablart, Velasco,and Obrist 2017; Obrist, Seah, and Subramanian 2013; Vi et al.2017; see Huisman 2017, for a recent review). Thesetechnological developments may prove useful as far asimproving physical interactions with both objects and peopleare concerned (Brengman, Willems, and Van Kerrebroeck2018; Chung, Kramer, and Wong 2018; Kerrebroeck, Helena,and Brengman 2017). Below, we describe how such develop-ments may impact product selection, the NFT, and eveninterpersonal interactions.

Haptic Product Evaluation

Using a direct touch interface has consequences for howpeople search for a product or service and make their choices

Fig. 2. Shoogleit multi-gesture interface

online (see Brasel and Gips 2015; Shen, Zhang, and Krishna2016). For instance, the participants in one study by Brasel andGips had to search for hotels on a travel review website usingeither a touch screen or a mouse interface. Interestingly, thosewho used the touch screen mentioned more tangible elementsof the room (e.g., referring to its décor and furniture), andconsidered internal sources of information (e.g., gut feel andinstinct) as being more important in their choice process. Bycontrast, those who used the mouse were more affected byexternal objective sources (user reviews and star ratings), andmentioned more intangible attributes as instrumental in makingtheir decision (e.g., the availability of Wi-Fi and employeedemeanor). Thus, touch-screen devices would appear morelikely to bias the online purchase process than more traditionalmouse interfaces.

Using a haptic interface can also affect the consumer'spreference. Shen, Zhang, and Krishna 2016 found that using adirect touch interface compared with a non-touch interfacemade people more likely to choose a hedonic option over autilitarian one. They also demonstrated that mental interactionwith the products mediates this direct-touch effect. Theseresults suggest that similar to visual design, haptic design canbe manipulated to enhance mental simulations of productinteraction. Based on the available evidence, marketers should,whenever possible, therefore consider whether it is possible touse different interfaces as a function of the kind of product thatthey wish to promote.

Need for Touch for Material Evaluation

Visual-enabling technologies have proven unsuitable for theevaluation of products with material properties by individualswith a high NFT (Choi and Taylor 2014). However, the online

on touch screen, Cano et al. (2017).

Fig. 3. InFORM shapeshifting display, Leithinger et al. (2014).


environment offers the consumer other ways in which tointeract with the products that they may happen to beevaluating. For instance, Brasel and Gips (2014) demonstratedthat touch screens elicit stronger feelings of perceived productownership than touchpads or mice. In turn, this perceivedownership increases what people are willing to pay in order toacquire the products. They also found that the touch–ownership link is stronger for those products that have highmaterial properties (e.g., a sweatshirt as compared to a citytour). By providing a more direct interaction with the productthan visual interfaces, haptic interfaces have no doubtstimulated mental imagery and thus increased the perceptionof ownership for material products. However, these techniqueshave not been successful in compensating for the NFT ofmaterial products, something that might potentially beaddressed by certain of the new haptic interfaces (Cano et al.2017; Jin 2011). For example, Cano et al. used a digital toolcalled Shoogleit which allows the user to virtually pinch andscrunch a section of the clothing fabric with their fingertips ona tablet during product evaluation (see Fig. 2). Thistechnology contributed to a higher level of user engagement,regardless of participants' NFT. Thus, further studies should be

conducted in order to see whether this type of technologycould be used to improve the assessment of people with highNFT for other material properties such as flexibility orelasticity of clothing.

Recent progress in HCI suggests that it will soon be possibleto imitate the feel of different textures by means of tactileinterfaces. For instance, Obrist et al. (2013) created differentnon-contact tactile sensations using ultrasound waves withmodulation frequencies (16 Hz, 250 Hz). They found thatparticipants associated the 16 Hz stimulation frequency withphysical materials, such as thin textiles, whereas the experienceon being stimulated by 250 Hz was related to wind/breeze, suchas air-conditioning in the car instead. These haptic stimulationsmight one day, perhaps, help to communicate different materialproperties concerning the products via the Internet, and by sodoing compensate for the customer's NFT. These new haptic-enabling technologies can also help the consumer to understandhow the product works, by interacting physically with it at adistance. Leithinger and his colleagues (2014) developedinFORM, a shape-shifting display, with an operation that,similar to the Pinscreen, creates rough 3D models of objects bypressing them into flattened pins. The “pins” of inFORM areconnected to a laptop, and can be manipulated to make physicalrepresentations of digital contents, and also to interact withreal-life objects (e.g., playing with a ball, Fig. 3). The idea isthat consumers would benefit from such a technology in thatit would enable them to manipulate products with salientmaterial properties before buying them remotely (e.g., to feelthe delicacy of a fabric or the robustness of a chair, say). Thus,they will not need to go through mental imagery to fill in themissing sensations in the online environment (Spence andDeroy 2013).

Midas Online Touch Effect

In the future, marketers will likely also want to promoteinterpersonal relationships in the online environment in order tomake their website appear more trustworthy, or even promoteword of mouth on social media. Kreijns et al. (2007) suggestthat improving the perceived sociability of a website is likely tofacilitate a consumer's trust, belongingness, and sense ofcommunity. Animesh et al. (2011) also highlighted thatperceived sociability in the virtual environment is positivelyrelated to the experience of flow. Haptic-enabling technologiesmight help to improve interpersonal relationships whencommunication is over the Internet. Touch is very importantwhen it comes to establishing secure attachments andinterpersonal connections between people (see Gallace andSpence 2014, for a review; Guerrero and Andersen 1994).Touching someone can result in prosocial behavior, aphenomenon known as the “Midas touch effect” (Crusco andWetzel 1984). For instance, Crusco and Wetzel found thatwhen a server physically touches a customer, it leads to anincrease in the size of the tip. Similarly, being touched by asalesperson can give rise to a feeling of social attachment,which can then enhance the evaluation of products and services(Hornik 1992). Social touch also has the power to communicate


specific emotions. So, for example, Hertenstein et al. (2006)showed that hitting, squeezing, or shaking the forearm ofanother person can be used to communicate anger, whereaslove is mostly communicated by stroking, finger interlocking,and rubbing.

Similar to real touch, haptic devices allow people to induceaffective reactions over the Internet (Sumioka et al. 2013, seeGallace and Spence 2014; Huisman 2017, for reviews). Forexample, by producing specific patterns of vibrotactilefeedback, Rantala et al. (2013) were able to induce emotionsin users. Thus, unpleasant and high-arousal emotions werefound to be better transmitted by means of squeeze-likegestures, whereas the finger-touch gesture was more suitablefor pleasant and low aroused emotions. Other studies have alsoshowed that digital haptic input can be used to increase feelingsof telepresence (Sallnäs, Rassmus-Gröhn, and Sjöström 2000;see Gallace et al. 2012, for a review). Interestingly, though, theMidas touch effect has proved difficult to reproduce usinghaptic-enabling technologies. For instance, Haans andIJsselsteijn (2009) failed to find a virtual “Midas touch effect”when people were touched by a haptic device. More recently,though, Haans, de Bruijn, and IJsselsteijn (2014) succeeded indemonstrating a virtual Midas touch effect, but only when theconfederate (i.e., the person who initiated the virtual touch)knew in which experimental condition (virtual touch vs. notouch) was the participant who had to exhibit signs of prosocialbehavior. They may have been biased to elicit helping behaviorin the touch condition. Thus, it is possible that only specificprosocial behaviors might be affected by the virtual “Midastouch effect”. Consistent with such a view, Spapé et al. (2015)reported that vibrotactile feedback affected generosity (i.e.,increasing the size of an offer) but not direct compliance (i.e.,accepting an offer).

Without going as far as prosocial behavior, these technol-ogies can simply improve the felt closeness between people(and between people and brands). For instance, Mueller et al.(2005) developed a device that allows one person to send a hugto another by rubbing the belly of a stuffed animal. Similarly,the inFORM display allows the users to touch their handsremotely, to extend the physical embodiment in the onlineenvironment (see Fig. 3, Leithinger et al. 2014). Developingthis kind of interaction for use while on the Internet may be ofinterest to marketers, given that online consumer socializationthrough peer communication plays a key role in purchasedecisions (Wang, Yu, and Wei 2012). However, to facilitatehaptic communication online, cheaper and more convenientinterfaces, adaptable to computers and mobile phones, willlikely need to be developed. For example, Park and Nam(2013) created a device to share haptic “pokes” during phonecalls. Pokes are sent through an inflatable surface on the frontof a mobile phone, while another person receives fingerpressure inputs on the back of another phone. It is easy toimagine how such a device might one day be used on socialmedia, to poke friends, followers, and even potential customers.However, it is worth noting that such a Poke might still be verysimilar to a notification signaled by vibration of the mobilephone that can be turned off.

Multisensory-Enabling Technologies: The Future of theInternet

The majority of life's most enjoyable experiences areinherently multisensory (Spence 2002). In the real world, themore store atmospherics are multisensorially congruent, themore pleasant and interesting they will likely be evaluated(Mattila and Wirtz 2001; see Spence et al. 2014, for a review).The same is likely to be true for online environments (Dinh etal. 1999; Feng, Dey, and Lindeman 2016; Liu, Hannum, andSimons 2018; Obrist et al. 2016; Spence et al. 2017). Previousresearch has shown that multisensory integration increases thelikelihood that the brain detects a stimulus and/or initiates aresponse to this stimulus (see Stein and Stanford 2008 for areview). Furthermore, multisensory integration (and otherforms of crossmodal interaction) might be facilitated bysemantic congruency and cross-modal correspondences (Chenand Spence 2018; Spence 2011).

Semantic congruency refers to those situations in whichpairs of stimuli in different sensory modalities share commonidentity or meaning (e.g., woofing sound paired with a staticpicture of a dog). Cross-modal correspondences describe amore general tendency for a feature, or attribute (e.g., larger/smaller objects), in one sensory modality to be matched (orassociated) with a sensory feature, or attribute (e.g., lower/higher-pitched sounds), in another (Spence 2011). Based oncross-modal correspondences, mental imagery occurring in onesensory modality (not only visual) might result from thepresentation of a physical stimulus in another. Cross-modalmental imagery has been considered as a form of perceptualcompletion and might thus be used to fill in the missing featuresthrough the Internet (Spence and Deroy 2013).

Cross-modal correspondences and semantic congruencyhave been shown to influence performance across a range ofdifferent tasks (e.g., speed of detection, perceptual discrimina-tion) that can be relevant to make decisions in the onlineenvironment (Spence 2011). Specifically, in the followingsubsections, we show how visual and auditory designs can beused/combined in order to improve information search andsensory expectations, and how new multisensory-enablingtechnologies can lead marketers to rethink consumer's onlineexperience.

Sensory Congruency in Product Search

During online purchases on a retailer's websites (e.g., shoes,digital cameras, or food), it is often necessary to display a largenumber of images representing relatively similar products. Thechoice between items can be difficult to make. In this context,brands have to attract customers' attention on their productimages in order to increase their chances of selection (Armel,Beaumel, and Rangel 2008; Milosavljevic et al. 2012). In orderto improve product saliency, marketers might want to ensurethat the visual features used to promote the products arecongruent with their other sensory attributes.

Sunaga, Park, and Spence (2016) highlighted that lightercolored objects tend to be perceived as lighter (in weight), and


objects appear lighter when they are presented at the upper partof the visual field. Based on these associations, they were ableto facilitate their participants' visual search by using a displayon the screen with light (dark) colored products positioned inthe upper (lower) shelf positions. Here, the cross-modalcorrespondence between the lightness of product colors andtheir location increased the speed and accuracy with whichproducts were detected, facilitating visual search and productselection. Similar correspondences also exist between light(dark) color and high (low) sound frequency (Marks 1987).Relevant here, Hagtvedt and Brasel (2016) recently found thatlow (vs. high) sound frequency leads people to fixate on dark(vs. light) objects faster and for longer.

Semantic congruency can also affect visual search. Forexample, Velasco et al. (2015) reported that people search for,and find, target products in online displays significantly fasterwhen the color of the packaging happens to be (semantically)congruent with the flavor of the product (e.g., red/tomato) thanwhen it is less congruent (e.g., yellow/tomato). Similarly,Knoeferle et al. (2016) demonstrated that using sounds that aresemantically associated with particular brands/product catego-ries reduces the amount of time used to search on a virtualshelf, whether this sound is made by the packaging (e.g., thepopping sound of the cork when a bottle of Champagne isopened), or a product-related jingle (e.g., the slogan of alaundry brand). Thus, congruent sounds may be used to helpthe consumer find the products that they are looking for on acluttered website more rapidly, even if this product does notitself have any particularly salient sound associated with it.However, since certain cross-modal associations can becontextually and culturally determined (e.g., flavor expecta-tions of colored beverage, Spence 2011; Wan et al. 2014), it isimportant for marketers to adapt the visual and auditoryfeatures not only to the products but also to the targetedcustomers.

Fig. 4. MetaCookie+, Narumi et al. (2011).

Sensory Congruency in Product Evaluation

Once the customers' attention has been captured, they willneed to analyze the attributes of the product to know whether ornot it meets their expectations (Dawar and Parker 1994).Similar to visual search, visual and auditory features cancommunicate sensory expectations by considering semanticcongruency and cross-modal correspondences. For instance,round shapes (e.g., logos, labels, figures, typefaces) have beenshown to be more appropriate when it comes to communicatingsweetness, while bitter, salty, and sour tastes might be betterpromoted through the use of more angular shapes instead (seeVelasco et al. 2016b, for a review). Similarly, pink, white,green, and black foreground colors should be used to enhancepeople's expectations that a product is going to taste sweet,salty, sour, and bitter, respectively (see Favre and November1979; Wan et al., 2015; Woods and Spence 2016).

At this stage, auditory features can be used to convey, oraccentuate, the sensory features of a product online throughsemantic congruency (e.g., the crack of the chocolate of an ice-cream bar, or even the sound of a vacuum cleaner or coffeemachine, see Minsky and Fahey 2017). For example, Zampiniand Spence (2004) demonstrated that simply by manipulatingthe sounds made while biting into crisps (potato chips), theperceived crispness and freshness of crisps can be enhanced.Similarly, Spence and Zampini (2007) found that the level andfrequency of sounds can also affect a consumer's perception ofthe forcefulness (and hence efficacy) of aerosol sprays.Meanwhile, Ho et al. (2013) were able to improve the virtualexperience associated with trying on new clothing (a productwith more salient material properties) based on semanticcongruency, by adding synchronized naturalistic auditoryfeedback. Immersed in the virtual clothing environment,participants imagined that they were out shopping for a winterjacket and had to try on two options in two conditions (with thesound made by the clothes when the wearer moves weresynchronized vs. silence). The authors found that in thepresence of sound during the virtual trial, the users werewilling to pay more for the jacket than when they tried it on insilence. Thus, by playing on the semantic congruency betweensounds and material properties in virtual environments,marketers might help those consumers with a high NFT to bemore confident in their choices.

Care should, however, be taken not to bore the customer orto assault their ears with too much auditory stimulation (what isoften referred to as “noise”; see Malhotra 1984; Spence 2014).Consumers may prefer to shop on the Internet for the peace ofmind it provides, and the possibility of turning-off the sound(interestingly, some bricks-and-mortar stores have now startedoffering silent chill-out spaces: e.g., Selfridges, the Londondepartment store offered this back in 2013; see Mardin 2013).Nevertheless, while consumers may sometimes find back-ground sound to be distracting, it is important to remember thatproduct sounds can provide an essential source of informationin terms of product evaluation (see Spence and Zampini 2006,for a review). Moreover, marketers should be able to benefitfrom new multisensory-enabling technologies to stimulate

Fig. 5. Virtual Lemonade, Ranasinghe et al. (2017).


several senses at once, which should further facilitate sensoryintegration (Spence 2011; Stein and Stanford 2008). Some ofthese technologies are presented in the following section.

Multisensory Online Experience

New multisensory devices are emerging, offering theopportunity to stimulate more of the customer's senses overthe Internet. While these technologies are not yet fullycommercialized, they let us dream of an online environmentmore connected to the senses. For example, Ranasinghe et al.(2018) recently developed “Season Traveler,” a customizedwearable Head Mounted Display (HMD) system that featuressmells, thermal, and wind stimuli to simulate real-worldenvironmental conditions when users explore (virtually)different landscapes. Similarly, an AR device calledMetaCookie+ allow the user to change the perceived flavor offood (e.g., a plain cookie) by virtually manipulating itsappearance and diffusing additional smell (e.g., chocolate,strawberry; see Fig. 4, Narumi et al. 2011; see also Okajima andSpence 2011).

New adaptations of sensory marketing strategies in onlineenvironments may be possible based on these multisensoryinterfaces. One day odors might be diffused while people areonline in order to stimulate perceptual re-enactment andfacilitate memorization and recall of information in the onlineenvironment (Braun et al. 2016; Krishna, Lwin, and Morrin2010; Morrin and Ratneshwar 2003). For instance, one couldimagine the Doubletree chain of hotels diffusing the same scentof the cookies offered to customers at the reception desk, viasmell devices, during online booking, say, to set up ananticipation of what's to come (though see Wan 2015).However, this requires that the devices have enough odors instock to be able to diffuse the one corresponding to the brand,and that consumers also think of reloading the odor diffusers

(and that they are available for refill), which seems unrealisticat this stage.

One can also dream that it would be possible to share thetaste of products on the Internet (see Velasco et al. 2018, for areview on multisensory technologies for online and mixedreality food experiences). However, only a few SETs havesucceeded in simulating the sense of taste (and mostly, onlywithin the confines of the technology labs; Straw-like UserInterface, Hashimoto, Inami, and Kajimoto 2008; foodsimulator, Iwata et al. 2004; Spence et al. 2017; Velasco et al.2016a). Recently, Ranasinghe et al. (2017) presented a newmethod by which to potentially share drinking experiencesdigitally over the Internet. First, they presented a device that isable to capture the color and pH value of a lemonade (amongother liquids) and explained that these data might be digitallytransmitted to a special tumbler filled with plain water inanother location. On receiving the information from the device,the tumbler changes the color of the liquid in the glass usingLEDs and produced electrical stimulations on the user's tongue(note that the user has to stick their tongue out and touch it onthe glass) with the hope of manipulating the experiencedsourness of the ensuing taste sensation (see Fig. 5).

On reading about the aforementioned techniques, marketersmight imagine a future in which people could upload the flavor(including taste and smell) before making their product choicein a supermarket or pizza home-delivery website. However,before jumping straight into such futuristic scenarios, it is worthnoting that there are many biological (e.g., individualdifferences in gustatory perception on the basis of thermalstimulation of the tongue) and technical challenges (e.g., sweettaste sensations are more difficult to elicit than sour or saltysensations) that need to be addressed before such systemsbecome viable (see Spence et al. 2017). Such technologies are,then, not necessarily all that interesting to marketers in theircurrent form. That said, they do perhaps suggest new ways of


interacting with consumers online in the (near) future. Next, wediscuss opportunities for research.

Need for Research

There have been many efforts in HCI directed at integratingdifferent sensory modalities online. However, further researchis still needed in order to create more enjoyable and informativemultisensory experiences for the consumer by means of SETs.Marketing and HCI researchers should therefore think aboutwhat kind of experiences they wish to offer to consumers andboth capitalize on those new tools and develop others thatfacilitate the delivery of multisensory experiences. We try toprovide some answers to a series of outstanding relevantquestions, by suggesting some lines of research.

How Do Offline and Online Environments Differ in Terms ofMultisensory Information Processing?

Although the new SETs bring online and in-store environ-ments closer together, the consumer's experiences are still notcomparable. For instance, when consumers browse a retailer'swebsite, the interaction is mainly through the screen of thecomputer or the mobile phone, while in-store the consumer iscompletely immersed. Even if VR makes the online experiencemore immersive (Animesh et al. 2011; Li, Daugherty, andBiocca 2002), people are not totally separated from their offlineenvironment (at home, at the office, at a terrace of a cafe).Additionally, although these technologies provide sensoryinteractions with products (Cano et al. 2017; Jin 2011), theireffects on the online experience might not necessarily beidentical to those in-store. Therefore, comparative studiesbetween the online and offline environments are still needed(see Javornik 2016a, for a review). Further research might alsoinvestigate the effects in terms of information processing(visual attention, visual search, memorization, preferences, e.g.,Knoeferle et al. 2016; Shen et al. 2016; Sunaga et al. 2016;Velasco et al. 2015), aspects of communication (e.g.,connectivity, Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel 2009; hyper-textuality, Su 2008; interactivity, Song and Zinkhan 2008; andmobility, Sultan, Rohm, and Gao 2009), and also informative-ness and entertainment (Childers et al. 2001; Eroglu et al. 2001;Hsieh et al. 2014; Kim and Forsythe 2008a, b; Novak,Hoffman, and Yung 2000; Rose et al. 2012).

It might also be interesting to evaluate the extent to whichSETs stimulate mental imagery by facilitating the perceptual re-enactments of previous experiences, or otherwise reduce theirrelevance for consumers in the online purchase process. Ifconsumers can (virtually) touch, feel, or taste the products bymeans of SETs, mental imagery might not be necessaryanymore. Moreover, it would be (virtually) possible to taste aproduct before (or without) smelling or touching it, whichcould potentially change the psychological distance (i.e., makethe subjective experience that it is close regardless of the actualphysical distance), with products on the Internet (Elder et al.2017).

How to Decide Whether Information Should Be CommunicatedThrough Visual, Haptic, Auditory, or Multisensory-EnablingTechnologies?

Depending on their objectives, marketers should considerwhat kind of experience they wish to provide to consumers andmake a choice between different SETs. For instance, wehighlighted that visual-enabling technologies might serve tomake the online experience more immersive and enjoyable(Animesh et al. 2011; Li et al. 2002), and that haptic interfacesare useful when it comes to affecting the generosity ofindividuals (Spapé et al. 2015). Both technologies also appearhelpful in terms of facilitating product evaluation and purchasebehavior, and might potentially one day be combined (Cano etal. 2017; Choi and Taylor 2014; Jin 2011). Other applicationsmay undoubtedly be developed in order to improve theinteraction between online retailers and their customers (e.g.,transaction uncertainty, Pavlou, Liang, and Xue 2007; engage-ment with the retailer, Shah and Murtaza 2005), or otherinterlocutors (e.g., trust, satisfaction, and commitment betweenbuyer and seller, Comer, Mehta, and Holmes 1998; seeVaradarajan et al. 2010).

Marketers should think carefully about their online sensoryneeds and work jointly with HCI researchers on new interfacesthat are more suited to consumers. For instance, Obrist, Seah,and Subramanian 2013 used ultrasound (mid-air haptics) inorder to create non-contact tactile sensations (associated byusers with wind/breeze, textiles). At this stage, the interface hasnot been integrated into consumer experiences. Who knows,future versions might be developed in order to provide differenttextile qualities (e.g., roughness, softness, elasticity), and mightthus help consumers to evaluate the clothes during onlineshopping.

How can One Assess the Optimal Personalized MultisensoryBalance?

Further research is needed in order to determine the rightbalance in terms of the involvement of each sense in consumers'experiences. Too much sensory stimulation and one is indanger of creating “sensory overload” (Malhotra 1984; Raju1980; Richard and Chebat 2016). It is not necessarily desirableto always engage each and every one of the user's sense in orderto make an effective multisensory virtual display (Gallace et al.2012). Ultimately, the level of stimulation of each sense shouldperhaps be adapted to the “sensotype” of the individual (e.g.,liking Lush/A&F-like olfactory rich environments vs. feelingsensory overload) and determined by the context, which couldencourage consumer acceptance of SETs (Dunn 2007; Wober1991). For example, vision might dominate when the geometricaspects (size, orientation) of the products are relevant for itsevaluation, and haptic/smell/taste might be considered when itcomes to a product's material properties (Gallace et al. 2012).

Personalizing online information can be expensive forbrands. Therefore, the latter should question what individualdifferences in multisensory perception might be interesting toconsider, and when and how multisensory experiences should

Fig. 6. (a.) Tesco virtual supermarket in a subway station created by Cheil (b.) Factual augmented supermarket created by Keiichi MATSUDA.


be personalized in online environments. For example, it maynot be necessary to customize the interaction of consumers witha watch (i.e., a product with salient geometric properties) basedon their NFT. It should also be noted that consumers arecurrently not used to manipulate the new SETs on the Internet.Therefore, further studies should also be conducted tounderstand any novelty effects, as well as how to facilitate theacceptance these new technologies.

How to Better Connect the Online and the OfflineEnvironments?

In a traditional retail context, the atmospherics creatednotably by sensory environmental cues (e.g., color, lighting,music, scent) have been shown to influence the behavior ofcustomers through their emotional reactions (Baker, Levy, and

Grewal 1992; Kotler, 1973; Turley and Milliman, 2000).Diffusing a pleasant odor, color, or music can contribute to thepositive evaluation of the store and influences the time and themoney that consumers spend there (Chebat and Michon, 2003;Sherman, Mathur, and Smith 1997; Spangenberg, Crowley, andPamela 1996). In addition, the more store atmospherics aremultisensory and congruent through the senses, the morepleasant and interesting for consumers they are evaluated (seeSpence et al. 2014, for a review).

Several interactive technologies, such as shopping assistantsystems and smart mirrors, are already modifying thetraditional store experience (Brasel and Gips 2014; Cano et al.2017; see Pantano and Naccarato 2010, for a review). Forinstance, touch screens can facilitate the interaction with theproduct and create stronger perceived ownership, enablingextended use both in-store and out to the store (Brasel and Gips,


2014; Cano et al., 2017). Technologies are becoming anincreasingly important part of store atmosphere and an effectivemeans of luring consumers in to the store. In this way, Poncinand Mimoun (2014) highlighted that using magic mirrors withaugmented reality and interactive game terminals in a physicalstore has a positive effect on the perception of storeatmospherics.

The SETs offer the customer the opportunity to browseonline from the store, getting more information about products,in addition to having a positive effect on the perception of astore's atmosphere (Kent et al. 2015). However, SETs shouldnot simply be seen as tools with which to connect the onlineenvironment with the physical store, but also as a means tocreate new environments in which physical and virtual objects/products coexist and potentially interact (Milgram and Kishino1994). For instance, Pokemon Go revealed a bright new futurein which the borders between the real and imaginary world areno longer so clearly delineated (Milgram and Kishino 1994). Ina mixed reality environment, people might be more easilydetached from reality than from a simple in-store experience(Javornik 2016a).

Marketers should think about building new spaces forinteraction with consumers through mixed reality and propos-ing new modes of experiential consumption (see Petit, Velasco,and Spence 2018, for a review on digital multisensorypackaging). The virtual grocery store opened by Tesco in aSouth Korean subway station provides a good example ofmixed reality. The glass walls of certain subway stations werecovered with images of supermarket shelfs (including products,prices, and bare codes), and commuters were able to shop usingtheir smartphones (see Fig. 6a). Another example comes fromKeiichi Matsuda, who proposes a glimpse of a world in whichall the elements of everyday life are enhanced through the eyesof a woman (e.g., a supermarket, in which an avatar pet on ashopping trolley offers discounts, see Fig. 6b). Through mixedreality, people might share the same physical space and havedifferent AR contents. They might also view the same AR layerwhile dispersed across different locations (Scholz and Smith2016). Therefore, it is important to understand whether thesesituations are similar in terms of embodiment (Wilson 2002).

To finish, it remains to be determined what level of hyper-connectivity and realism would be acceptable and beneficial toconsumers. According to Belk (1988), persons, places, andthings to which one feels attached are part of the extended self. Ifthe SETs offer new opportunities for people to extend their selfthrough the possession of digital objects, above all, theyhighlight a disappearance of the boundaries between consumers,products, and brands (Belk 2013). The objects of the mixedreality will become more embodied, invisible, to constitute anatural part of the self (Belk 2014). Therefore, further studiesshould explore how digital products can match consumers'expectations of themselves (Scholz and Duffy 2018).

Conclusions

In this review, we have highlighted the key role thatmultisensory information has in mediating consumer

experience not only in “the real world,” but also in a range ofonline environments. Including sensory information viawebsites is all the more important given that it results inconsumers being more confident in their choices and increasesthe likelihood that a liked product will be purchased. However,consumers do not necessarily need to touch or smell theproducts in order to get the relevant sensory information. Theycan also imagine the expected sensory properties of theproducts based on their previous product experiences, withthe support of basic digital interfaces (e.g., screen, mouse, andheadphones). Moreover, recent progress in HCI suggests that atleast new visual- and haptic-enabling technologies should beavailable on the Internet soon. Hopefully, these technologieswill go beyond simply reinforcing the effects of sensorymarketing strategies on consumer's online behavior, but alsocreate new forms of interaction taking place not only in virtualor in the real places but in mixed reality environments too.

We have presented a selective list of potential sensorytechnological developments for digital environments. We havealso raised some of their limits (distractive, untrustworthy, andsensory overload). We have highlighted some of the ways inwhich marketers can use these innovations to better transfersensory information to consumers in the online environment.Here, it is worth remembering that many SETs currently onlyexist as prototypes (and hence people are not necessarilyaccustomed to them), while others are still to be invented! Forthis reason, the objective was not to describe and delimit whatis exactly digital sensory marketing, but rather to provide agreater understanding of its interests for the future of marketingresearch. Many challenges and questions await marketers andresearchers in the integration of sensory marketing in the digitalworld. For us, these challenges mainly revolve around findingthe right balance between the different sensory inputs thatmight be stimulated online and/or offline in mixed reality, andpotentially adapted to an individual's preferences, and location(e.g., at home, at the office, in a physical store). We believe thatit is important that marketers become aware of this newevolution to anticipate and analyze how new technologieswill impact market attitudes and behaviors through the“sensorialization” of digital environments.

References

Ablart, Damien, Carlos Velasco, and Marianna Obrist (2017, June), “Integrat-ing Mid-Air Haptics Into Movie Experiences,” paper presented atInternational Conference on Interactive Experiences for Television andOnline Video, Netherlands: Hilversum.

Algharabat, Raed, Ali Abdallah Alalwan, Nripendra P. Rana, and Yogesh K.Dwivedi (2017), “Three Dimensional Product Presentation QualityAntecedents and Their Consequences for Online Retailers: The ModeratingRole of Virtual Product Experience,” Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices, 36, 203–17.

Animesh, Animesh, Alain Pinsonneault, Sung-Byung Yang, and Wonseok Oh(2011), “An Odyssey into Virtual Worlds: Exploring the Impacts ofTechnological and Spatial Environments on Intention to Purchase VirtualProducts,” MIS Quarterly, 35, 3, 789–810.

Armel, K. Carrie, Aurelie Beaumel, and Antonio Rangel (2008), “BiasingSimple Choices by Manipulating Relative Visual Attention,” Judgment andDecision Making, 3, 5, 396–403.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1094-9968(18)30051-3/rf0005















Baker, Julie, Michael Levy, and Dhruv Grewal (1992), “An ExperimentalApproach to Making Retail Store Environmental Decisions,” Journal ofRetailing, 68, 4, 445–60.

Barsalou, Lawrence W. (2008), “Grounded Cognition,” Annual Review ofPsychology, 59, 617–45.

Basso, Frédéric, Olivia Petit, Sophie Le Bellu, Saadi Lahlou, A. AïdaCancel, and Jean-Luc Anton (2018), “Taste at First (Person) Sight:Visual Perspective Modulates BMI-Dependent Brain Activity Associ-ated With Viewing Unhealthy but not Healthy Foods,” Appetite, 128,242–54.

Beck, Marie and D. Crié (2018), “I Virtually Try It… I Want It! Virtual FittingRoom: A Tool to Increase On-Line and Off-Line Exploratory Behavior,Patronage and Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices, 40, 279–86.

Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 15, 2, 139–68.

——— (2013), “Extended Self in a Digital World,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 40, 3, 477–500.

——— (2014), “Digital Consumption and the Extended Self,” Journal ofMarketing Management, 30, 11–12, 1101–18.

Bölte, Jens, Thomas M. Hösker, Gerrit Hirschfeld, and Meinald Thielsch(2017), “Electrophysiological Correlates of Aesthetic Processing ofWebpages: A Comparison of Experts and Laypersons,” PeerJ, 5e3440.

Brasel, S. Adam and James Gips (2014), “Tablets, Touchscreens, andTouchpads: How Varying Touch Interfaces Trigger Psychological Owner-ship and Endowment,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 2, 226–33.

——— and ——— (2015), “Interface Psychology: Touchscreens ChangeAttribute Importance, Decision Criteria, and Behavior in Online Choice,”Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 9, 534–8.

Braun, Marius H., Gilang Andi Pradana, George Buchanan, Adrian D. Cheok,Carlos Velasco, Charles Spence, Andoni Luis Aduriz, Jade Gross, andDani Lasa (2016), “Emotional Priming of Digital Images Through MobileTele-Smell and Virtual Food,” International Journal of Food Design, 1,29–45.

Brengman, Malaika, KimWillems, and Helena Van Kerrebroeck (2018), “Can'tTouch This: The Impact of Augmented Reality Versus Touch and Non-Touch Interfaces on Perceived Ownership,” Virtual Reality, 1–12.

Bridges, Eileen and Renée Florsheim (2008), “Hedonic and UtilitarianShopping Goals: The Online Experience,” Journal of Business Research,61, 4, 309–14.

Calder, Bobby J., Edward C. Malthouse, and Ute Schaedel (2009), “AnExperimental Study of the Relationship Between Online Engagement andAdvertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 4,321–31.

Calvert, Gemma A., Edward T. Bullmore, Michael J. Brammer, Ruth Campbell,Steven C.R. Williams, Philip K. McGuire, Peter W.R. Woodruff, SusanIversen, and Anthony S. David (1997), “Activation of Auditory CortexDuring Silent Lipreading,” Science, 276, 5312, 593–6.

Cano, Marta Blazquez, Patsy Perry, Rachel Ashman, and Kathryn Waite(2017), “The Influence of Image Interactivity Upon User EngagementWhen Using Mobile Touch Screens,” Computers in Human Behavior, 77,406–12.

Chebat, Jean-Charles and RichardMichon (2003), “Impact of Ambient Odors onMall Shoppers' Emotions, Cognition, and Spending: A Test of CompetitiveCausal Theories,” Journal of Business Research, 56, 7, 529–39.

Chen, Jing, Esther K. Papies, and Lawrence W. Barsalou (2016), “A CoreEating Network and Its Modulations Underlie Diverse Eating Phenomena,”Brain and Cognition, 110, 20–42.

Chen, Yi-Chuan and Charles Spence (2018), “Audiovisual Semantic Interac-tions Between Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Stimuli: The Time-Coursesand Categorical Specificity,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: HumanPerception and Performance.

Childers, Terry L., Christopher L. Carr, Joann Peck, and Stephen Carson(2001), “Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations for Online Retail ShoppingBehaviour,” Journal of Retailing, 77, 4, 511–35.

Cho, Hyejeung and Norbert Schwarz (2012), “I Like Your Product When I LikeMy Photo: Misattribution Using Interactive Virtual Mirrors,” Journal ofInteractive Marketing, 26, 4, 235–43.

Choi, Yung Kyun and Charles R. Taylor (2014), “How do 3-DimensionalImages Promote Products on the Internet?” Journal of Business Research,67, 10, 2164–70.

Christian, Brittany M., Lynden K. Miles, Sophie T. Kenyeri, JenniferMattschey, and C. Neil Macrae (2016), “Taming Temptation: VisualPerspective Impacts Consumption and Willingness to Pay for UnhealthyFoods,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 1, 85–94.

Chung, Sorim, Thomas Kramer, and Elaine M. Wong. (2018), "Do TouchInterface Users Feel More Engaged? The Impact of Input Device Type onOnline Shoppers’ Engagement, Affect, and Purchase Decisions," Psychol-ogy & Marketing.

Cian, Luca, Aradhna Krishna, and Ryan S. Elder (2014), “This Logo MovesMe: Dynamic Imagery From Static Images,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 51, 2, 184–97.

Comer, James M., Raj Mehta, and Terence L. Holmes (1998), “InformationTechnology: Retail Users Versus Nonusers,” Journal of InteractiveMarketing, 12, 2, 49–62.

Crusco, April H. and Christopher G. Wetzel (1984), “The Midas Touch theEffects of Interpersonal Touch on Restaurant Tipping,” Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 10, 4, 512–7.

Dawar, Niraj and Philip Parker (1994), “Marketing Universals: Consumers' Useof Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation asSignals of Product Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 58, 2, 81–95.

De Volder, Anne G., Hinako Toyama, Yuichi Kimura, Motohiro Kiyosawa,Hideki Nakano, Annick Vanlierde, Marie-Chantal Wanet-Defalque,Masahiro Mishina, Keiichi Oda, Kiichi Ishiwata, and Michio Senda(2001), “Auditory Triggered Mental Imagery of Shape Involves VisualAssociation Areas in Early Blind Humans,” NeuroImage, 14, 1, 129–39.

Dinh, Huong Q., Neff Walker, Chang Song, Akira Kobayashi, and Larry F.Hodges (1999, March), “Evaluating the Importance of Multi-Sensory Inputon Memory and the Sense of Presence in Virtual Environments,” VirtualReality, IEEE, 222–8.

Dunn, Winnie (2007), Living Sensationally: Understanding Your Senses.London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Eelen, Jiska, Siegfried Dewitte, and Luk Warlop (2013), “Situated EmbodiedCognition: Monitoring Orientation Cues Affects Product Evaluation andChoice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 4, 424–33.

Elder, Ryan S. and Aradhna Krishna (2012), “The “Visual Depiction Effect” inAdvertising: Facilitating Embodied Mental Simulation Through ProductOrientation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 6, 988–1003.

———, Anne E. Schlosser, Morgan Poor, and L. Lidan Xu (2017), “So Close ICan Almost Sense It: The Interplay Between Sensory Imagery andPsychological Distance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44, 4, 877–94.

Eroglu, Sevgin A., Karen A. Machleit, and Lenita M. Davis (2001),“Atmospheric Qualities of Online Retailing: A Conceptual Model andImplications,” Journal of Business Research, 54, 2, 177–84.

Favre, Jean Paul and André November (1979), Color and Communication.Zurich: ABC-Verlag.

Feng, Mi, Arindam Dey, and Robert W. Lindeman (2016, March), “An InitialExploration of a Multi-Sensory Design Space: Tactile Support for Walkingin Immersive Virtual Environments,” 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), IEEE,95–104.

Fransson, Peter and Guillaume Marrelec (2008), “The Precuneus/PosteriorCingulate Cortex Plays a Pivotal Role in the Default Mode Network:Evidence from a Partial Correlation Network Analysis,” NeuroImage, 42, 3,1178–84.

Gabisch, Jason A. (2011), “Virtual World Brand Experience and its Impact onReal World Purchasing Behaviour,” Journal of Brand Management, 19, 1,18–32.

Gallace, Alberto, Mary K. Ngo, John Sulaitis, and Charles Spence (2012),“Multisensory Presence in Virtual Reality: Possibilities & Limitations,”Multiple Sensorial Media Advances and Applications: New Developmentsin MulSeMedia, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 1–38.

——— and Charles Spence (2014), In Touch with the Future: The Sense ofTouch from Cognitive Neuroscience to Virtual Reality. Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press.

González, Julio, Alfonso Barros-Loscertales, Friedemann Pulvermüller,Vanessa Meseguer, A. Ana Sanjuán, Vicente Belloch, and César Ávila





















































































































(2006), “Reading Cinnamon Activates Olfactory Brain Regions,”NeuroImage, 32, 2, 906–12.

Guerrero, Laura K. and Peter A. Andersen (1994), “Patterns of Matching andInitiation: Touch Behavior and Touch Avoidance Across RomanticRelationship Stages,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 2, 137–53.

Gvili, Yaniv, Aner Tal, Moty Amar, and Brian Wansink (2017), “Moving up inTaste: Enhanced Projected Taste and Freshness of Moving Food Products,”Psychology & Marketing, 34, 7, 671–83.

Haans, Antal and Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn (2009), “The Virtual Midas Touch:Helping Behavior After a Mediated Social Touch,” IEEE Transactions onHaptics, 2, 3, 136–40.

———, Renske de Bruijn, and Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn (2014), “A VirtualMidas touch? Touch, Compliance, and Confederate Bias in MediatedCommunication,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38, 3, 301–11.

Hagtvedt, Henrik and S.A. Brasel (2016), “Cross-Modal Communication:Sound Frequency Influences Consumer Responses to Color Lightness,”Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 4, 551–62.

Hashimoto, Yuki, Masahiko Inami, and Hiroyuki Kajimoto (2008, June),“Straw-Like User Interface (Ii): A New Method of Presenting AuditorySensations for a More Natural Experience,” .paper presented at Interna-tional Conference on Human Haptic Sensing and Touch Enabled ComputerApplications, Berlin: Springer, 484–93.

Hertenstein, Matthew J., Dacher Keltner, Betsy App, Brittany Bulleit, andAriane R. Jaskolka (2006), “Touch Communicates Distinct Emotions,”Emotion, 6, 3, 528–33.

Ho, Cristy, Russ Jones, Scott King, Lynne Murray, and Charles Spence (2013),“Multisensory Augmented Reality in the Context of a Retail ClothingApplication,” in (((ABA))) Audio Branding Academy Yearbook 2012/2013.K. Bronner, R. Hirt, C. Ringe, editors. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 167–75.

Hornik, Jacob (1992), “Tactile Stimulation And Consumer Response,” Journalof Consumer Research, 19, 3, 449–58.

Hsieh, Jung-Kuei, Yi-Ching Hsieh, Hung-Chang Chiu, and Ya-Ru Yang(2014), “Customer Response to Web Site Atmospherics: Task-RelevantCues, Situational Involvement and PAD,” Journal of Interactive Marketing,28, 3, 225–36.

Huang, Echo (2012), “Online Experiences and Virtual Goods PurchaseIntention,” Internet Research, 22, 3, 252–74.

Huang, Tseng-Lung and Shu-Ling Liao (2017), “Creating e-ShoppingMultisensory Flow Experience Through Augmented-Reality InteractiveTechnology,” Internet Research, 27, 2, 449–75.

Huisman, Gijs (2017), “Social Touch Technology: A Survey of HapticTechnology for Social Touch,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 991939–1412.

Huxley, Aldous (1932), Brave New World. London, UK: Chatto & Windus.Iwata, Hiroo, Hiroaki Yano, Takahiro Uemura, and Tetsuro Moriya (2004,

March), “Food Simulator: A Haptic Interface for Biting,” Virtual Reality,IEEE, 51–7.

Jai, Tun-Min, Michael W. O'Boyle, and Dan Fang (2014), “Neural Correlatesof Sensory-Enabling Presentation: An fMRI Study of Image Zooming andRotation Video Effects on Online Apparel Shopping,” Journal of ConsumerBehaviour, 13, 5, 342–50.

Javornik, Ana (2016a), “Augmented Reality: Research Agenda for Studying theImpact of its Media Characteristics on Consumer Behaviour,” Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services, 30, 252–61.

——— (2016b), “‘It's an Illusion, But it Looks Real!’ Consumer Affective,Cognitive and Behavioural Responses to Augmented Reality Applications,”Journal of Marketing Management, 32, 9–10, 987–1011.

Jiang, Zhenhui and Izak Benbasat (2004), “Virtual Product Experience: Effectsof Visual and Functional Control of Products on Perceived Diagnosticityand Flow in Electronic Shopping,” Journal of Management InformationSystems, 21, 3, 111–47.

Jin, Seung-A Annie (2009), “The Roles of Modality Richness and Involvementin Shopping Behavior in 3D Virtual Stores,” Journal of InteractiveMarketing, 23, 3, 234–46.

——— (2011), “The Impact of 3D Virtual Haptics in Marketing,” Psychology& Marketing, 28, 3, 240–55.

Kent, Anthony, Charles Dennis, Marta Blazquez Cano, Schwarz Eva, J. JoškoBrakus, and Eleftherios Alamanos (2015), “Branding, Marketing, and

Design: Experiential In-Store Digital Environments,” in SuccessfulTechnological Integration for Competitive Advantage in Retail Settings.E. Pantano, editor. Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference, 1–22.

Kim, Jiyeon and Sandra Forsythe (2008a), “Sensory Enabling TechnologyAcceptance Model (SE-TAM): A Multiple-Group Structural ModelComparison,” Psychology & Marketing, 25, 9, 901–22.

——— and ——— (2008b), “Adoption of Virtual Try-On Technology forOnline Apparel Shopping,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22, 2, 45–59.

Kim, Sang-Youn, Ki-baek Kim, Jaehwan Kim, and Ki-uk Kyung (2013), “AFilm-Type Vibrotactile Actuator for Hand-Held Devices,” in Haptic andAudio Interaction Design, 7989. I. Oakley, S. Brewster, editors. LNCS,Berlin: Springer, 109–16.

Kitagawa, Norimichi and Yuka Igarashi (2005), “Tickle Sensation Inducedby Hearing a Sound (Summary of Awarded Presentation at the 23rdAnnual Meeting),” The Japanese Journal of Psychonomic Science, 24, 1,121–2.

Klein, Lisa R. (2003), “Creating Virtual Product Experiences: The Role ofTelepresence,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17, 1, 41–55.

Knoeferle, Klemens M., Pia Knoeferle, Carlos Velasco, and Charles Spence(2016), “Multisensory Brand Search: How the Meaning of Sounds GuidesConsumers' Visual Attention,” Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied, 22, 2, 196–210.

Knutson, Brian, Rick Scott, G. Elliott Wimmer, Drazen Prelec, and GeorgeLoewenstein (2007), “Neural Predictors of Purchases,” Neuron, 53, 1,147–56.

Kotler, Philip (1973), “Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool,” Journal ofRetailing, 49, 4, 48–64.

Kreijns, Karel, Paul A. Kirschner, Wim Jochems, and Hansvan Buurenc (2007),“Measuring Perceived Sociability of Computer-Supported CollaborativeLearning Environments,” Computers & Education, 49, 2, 176–92.

Krishna, Aradhna, May O. Lwin, and Maureen Morrin (2010), “Product Scentand Memory,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 1, 57–67.

——— (2012), “An Integrative Review of Sensory Marketing: Engaging theSenses to Affect Perception, Judgment and Behaviour,” Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 22, 3, 332–51.

——— and Norbert Schwarz (2014), “Sensory Marketing, Embodiment, andGrounded Cognition: A Review and Introduction,” Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 24, 2, 159–68.

———, Luca Cian, and Tatiana Sokolova (2016), “The Power of SensoryMarketing in Advertising,” Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 142–7.

———, ———, and Nilüfer Z. Aydınoğlu (2017), “Sensory Aspects ofPackage Design,” Journal of Retailing, 93, 1, 43–54.

Lacey, Simon, Peter Flueckiger, Randall Stilla, Lava Michael, and K. Sathiana(2010), “Object Familiarity Modulates the Relationship Between VisualObject Imagery and Haptic Shape Perception,” NeuroImage, 49, 3,1977–90.

Lederman, Susan J. (1974), “Tactile Roughness of Grooved Surfaces: TheTouching Process and Effects of Macro- and Microsurface Structure,”Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 385–95.

Lee, Kun Chang and Namho Chung (2008), “Empirical Analysis of ConsumerReaction to the Virtual Reality Shopping Mall,” Computers in HumanBehavior, 24, 1, 88–104.

Leithinger, Daniel, Sean Follmer, Alex Olwal, and Hiroshi Ishii (2014,October), “Physical Telepresence: Shape Capture and Display forEmbodied, Computer-Mediated Remote Collaboration,” Proceedings ofthe 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software andTechnology, ACM, 461–70.

Li, Hairong, Terry Daugherty, and Frank Biocca (2001), “Characteristics ofVirtual Experience in Electronic Commerce: A Protocol Analysis,” Journalof Interactive Marketing, 15, 3, 13–30.

———, ———, and ——— (2002), “Impact of 3-D Advertising on ProductKnowledge, Brand Attitude, and Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role ofPresence,” Journal of Advertising, 31, 3, 43–57.

Liu, Rebecca, Mackenzie Hannum, and Christopher T. Simons (2018), UsingImmersive Technologies to Explore the Effects of Congruent andIncongruent Contextual Cues on Context Recall, Product EvaluationTime, and Preference and Liking During Consumer Hedonic Testing.Food Research International.































































































































Malhotra, Naresh K. (1984), “Reflections on the Information OverloadParadigm in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research,10, 4, 436–40.

Mardin, Sandra (2013), “How Selfridges Made Noise About Being Quiet,”Canvas, 8Downloaded from http://www.canvas8.com/public/2013/01/18/no-noise-selfridges.html.

Marks, Lawrence E. (1987), “On Cross-Modal Similarity: Auditory–VisualInteractions in Speeded Discrimination,” Journal of Experimental Psychol-ogy: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 3, 384.

Mattila, Anna S. and Jochen Wirtz (2001), “Congruency of Scent and Music asa Driver of In-Store Evaluations and Behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 77, 2,273–89.

McCabe, Deborah Brown and Stephen M. Nowlis (2003), “The Effect ofExamining Actual Products or Product Descriptions on ConsumerPreference,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 4, 431–9.

Merle, Aurélie, Sylvain Senecal, and Anik St-Onge (2012), “Whether and HowVirtual Try-On Influences Consumer Responses to an Apparel Web Site,”International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16, 3, 41–64.

Milgram, Paul and Fumio Kishino (1994), “A Taxonomy of Mixed RealityVisual Displays,” IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77, 12,1321–9.

Milosavljevic, Milica, Vidhya Navalpakkam, Christof Koch, and AntonioRangel (2012), “Relative Visual Saliency Differences Induce Sizable Biasin Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 67–74.

Minsky, Laurence and Colleen Fahey (2017), Audio Branding: Using Sound toBuild Your Brand. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Morrin, Maureen and Srinivasan Ratneshwar (2003), “Does it Make Sense toUse Scents to Enhance Brand Memory?” Journal of Marketing Research,40, 1, 10–25.

Mueller, Florian F., Frank Vetere, Martin R. Gibbs, Jesper Kjeldskov, SonjaPedell, and Steve Howard (2005), “Hug Over a Distance,” CHI 05, ACM,1673–6.

Nah, Fiona Fui-Hoon, Brenda Eschenbrenner, and Davis Dewester (2011),“Enhancing Brand Equity Through Flow and Telepresence: A Comparisonof 2D and 3D Virtual Worlds,” MIS Quarterly, 35, 3, 731–47.

Narumi, Takuji, Shinya Nishizaka, Takashi Kajinami, Tomohiro Tanikawa, andMichitaka Hirose (2011, May), “Augmented Reality Flavors: GustatoryDisplay Based on Edible Marker and Cross-Modal Interaction,” .paperpresented at SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,ACM, 93–102.

Niedenthal, Paula M., Lawrence W. Barsalou, Piotr Winkielman, Silvia Krauth-Gruber, and François Ric (2005), “Embodiment in Attitudes, SocialPerception, and Emotion,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9,3, 184–211.

Novak, Thomas P., Donna Hoffman, and Yiu-Fai Yung (2000), “Measuring theCustomer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural ModelingApproach,” Marketing Science, 19, 1, 22–42.

Obrist, Marianna, Sue Ann Seah, and Sriram Subramanian (2013, April),“Talking About Tactile Experiences,” .paper presented atSIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM,1659–68.

———, Carlos Velasco, Chi Vi, Nimesha Ranasinghe, Ali Israr, Adrian D.Cheok, Charles Spence, and Ponnampalam Gopalakrishnakone (2016,May), “Touch, Taste, & Smell User Interfaces: The Future of MultisensoryHCI,” .paper presented at CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on HumanFactors in Computing Systems, ACM, 3285–92.

Okajima, Katsunori, Adrian D. Cheok, O. Olivia Petit, and Charles Michel(2016), “Eating with Our Eyes: From Visual Hunger to Digital Satiation,”Brain and Cognition, 110, 53–63.

——— and Charles Spence (2011), “Effects of Visual Food Texture on TastePerception,” i-Perception, 2, 8http://i-perception.perceptionweb.com/journal/I/article/ic966.

Overby, Jeffrey W. and Eun-Ju Lee (2006), “The Effects of Utilitarian andHedonic Online Shopping Value on Consumer Preference and Intentions,”Journal of Business Research, 59, 10–11, 1160–6.

Pantano, Eleonora and Giuseppe Naccarato (2010), “Entertainment in Retailing:The Influences of Advanced Technologies,” Journal of Retailing andConsumer Services, 17, 3, 200–4.

Papies, Esther K. and Lawrence Barsalou (2015), “Grounding Desire andMotivated Behavior: A Theoretical Framework and Review of EmpiricalEvidence,” in The Psychology of Desire.W. Hofmann, L. Nordgren, editors.New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Park, Jihye, Leslie Stoel, and Sharron J. Lennon (2008), “Cognitive, Affectiveand Conative Responses to Visual Simulation: The Effects of Rotation inOnline Product Presentation,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7, 1, 72–87.

Park, Young-Woo and Tek-Jin Nam (2013), “Poke: A New Way of SharingEmotional Touches During Phone Conversations,” CHI’13 ExtendedAbstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 2859–60.

Pavlou, Paul A., Huigang Liang, and Yajiong Xue (2007), “Understanding andMitigating Uncertainty in Online Exchange Relationships: A Principal-Agent Perspective,” MIS Quarterly, 31, 1, 105–36.

Peck, Joann and Terry L. Childers (2003a), “To Have and to Hold: TheInfluence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments,” Journal ofMarketing, 67, 2, 35–48.

——— and ——— (2003b), “Individual Differences in Haptic InformationProcessing: The “Need for Touch” Scale,” Journal of Consumer Research,30, 3, 430–42.

——— and Suzanne B. Shu (2009), “The Effect of Mere Touch on PerceivedOwnership,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 3, 434–47.

———, Victor A. Barger, and Andrea Webb (2013), “In Search of a Surrogatefor Touch: The Effect of Haptic Imagery on Perceived Ownership,” Journalof Consumer Psychology, 23, 2, 189–96.

Pessoa, Luiz and Peter De Weerd (2003), Filling-In: From PerceptualCompletion to Cortical Reorganization. Oxford University Press.

Petit, Olivia, Adrian D. Cheok, Charles Spence, Carlos Velasco, and Kasun T.Karunanayaka (2015, November), “Sensory Marketing in Light of NewTechnologies,” .proceedings from International Conference on Advances inComputer Entertainment Technology, ACM, 53.

———, Frédéric Basso, Dwight Merunka, Charles Spence, Adrian D. Cheok,and Olivier Oullier (2016), “Pleasure and the Control of Food Intake: AnEmbodied Cognition Approach to Consumer Self-Regulation,” Psychology& Marketing, 33, 8, 608–19.

———, Charles Spence, Carlos Velasco, Andy T. Woods, and A.D. Cheok(2017), “Changing the Influence of Portion Size on Consumer Behavior ViaImagined Consumption,” Journal of Business Research, 75, 240–8.

———, Carlos Velasco, and Charles Spence (2018), “Multisensory Consumer-Packaging Interaction (CPI): The Role of New Technologies,” inMultisensory Packaging: Designing New Product Experiences. CarlosVelasco, Spence Charles, editors. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Poncin, Ingrid and Mohamed Slim Ben Mimoun (2014), “The Impact of “e-Atmospherics” on Physical Stores,” Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices, 21, 5, 851–9.

Poushneh, Atieh and Arturo Z. Vasquez-Parraga (2017), “Discernible Impact ofAugmented Reality on Retail Customer's Experience, Satisfaction andWillingness to Buy,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34,229–34.

Raju, Puthankurissi S. (1980), “Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship toPersonality, Demographics, and Exploratory Behaviour,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 7, 3, 272–82.

Ranasinghe, Nimesha, Pravar Jain, Shienny Karwita, and Ellen Yi-Luen Do(2017, March), “Virtual Lemonade: Let's Teleport Your Lemonade!”, paperpresented at International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, andEmbodied Interaction (pp. 183–190), ACM.

Ranasinghe, Nimesha, Pravar Jain, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Tram, Koon C.R. Koh,David Tolley, Shienny Karwita, and Ellen Yi-Luen Do (2018, April),“Season Traveller: Multisensory Narration for Enhancing the VirtualReality Experience,” .paper presented at CHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems, ACM, 577.

Rantala, Jussi, Katri Salminen, Roope Raisamo, and Veikko Surakka (2013),“Touch Gestures in Communicating Emotional Intention via VibrotactileStimulation,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71, 6,679–90.

Richard, Marie-Odile and Jean-Charles Chebat (2016), “Modeling OnlineConsumer Behavior: Preeminence of Emotions and Moderating Influencesof Need for Cognition and Optimal Stimulation Level,” Journal of BusinessResearch, 69, 2, 541–53.




http://www.canvas8.com/public/2013/01/18/no-noise-selfridges.html

http://www.canvas8.com/public/2013/01/18/no-noise-selfridges.html













































http://i-perception.perceptionweb.com/journal/I/article/ic966

http://i-perception.perceptionweb.com/journal/I/article/ic966


































































Rose, Susan, Moira Clark, Phillip Samouel, and Neil Hair (2012), “OnlineCustomer Experience in e-Retailing: An Empirical Model of Antecedentsand Outcomes,” Journal of Retailing, 88, 2, 308–22.

Sallnäs, Eva-Lotta, KirstenRassmus-Gröhn, andCalle Sjöström (2000), “SupportingPresence in Collaborative Environments by Haptic Force Feedback,” ACMTransactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7, 4, 461–76.

Scholz, Joachim and Andrew N. Smith (2016), “Augmented Reality: DesigningImmersive Experiences that Maximize Consumer Engagement,” BusinessHorizons, 59, 2, 149–61.

——— and Katherine Duffy (2018), “We ARe at Home: How AugmentedReality Reshapes Mobile Marketing And Consumer-Brand Relationships,”Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 44, 11–23.

Shah, Jaymeen R. and Mirza B. Murtaza (2005), “Effective CustomerRelationship Management Through Web Services,” Journal of ComputerInformation Systems, 46, 1, 98–109.

Sharma, Amit (2017), “How Retail can Thrive in a World Without Stores,”Harvard Business Review, 2–5July 17. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/07/how-retail-can-thrive-in-a-world-without-stores.

Shen, Hao and Jaideep Sengupta (2012), “If You Can't Grab It, It Won't GrabYou: The Effect of Restricting The Dominant Hand on Target Evaluations,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 2, 525–9.

———, Meng Zhang, and Aradhna Krishna (2016), “Computer Interfaces andthe “Direct-Touch” Effect: Can iPads Increase the Choice of HedonicFood?” Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 5, 745–58.

Sherman, Elaine, Anil Mathur, and Ruth Belk Smith (1997), “StoreEnvironment and Consumer Purchase Behavior: Mediating Role ofConsumer Emotions,” Psychology and Marketing, 14, 4, 361–78.

Shu, Suzanne B. and Joann Peck (2011), “Psychological Ownership andAffective Reaction: Emotional Attachment Process Variables and TheEndowment Effect,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 4, 439–52.

Simmons, W. Kyle, Alex Martin, and Lawrence W. Barsalou (2005), “Picturesof Appetizing Foods Activate Gustatory Cortices for Taste and Reward,”Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1602–8.

Song, Ji Hee and George M. Zinkhan (2008), “Determinants of Perceived WebSite Interactivity,” Journal of Marketing, 72, 2, 99–113.

Spangenberg, Eric R., Ayn E. Crowley, and W. Pamela (1996), “Improving theStore Environment: Do Olfactory Cues Affect Evaluations and Behaviors?”Journal of Marketing, 60, 2, 67–80.

Spapé, Michiel M., Eve E. Hoggan, Giulio Jacucci, and Niklas Ravaja (2015),“The Meaning of the Virtual Midas Touch: An ERP Study in EconomicDecision Making,” Psychophysiology, 52, 3, 378–87.

Spence, Charles (2002), The ICI Report on the Secret of the Senses. London,UK: The Communication Group.

——— and Massimiliano Zampini (2006), “Auditory contributions tomultisensory product perception.,” Acta Acustica united with Acustica,92, 1009–25.

——— and Alberto Gallace (2008), “Making Sense of Touch,” in Touch inMuseums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling. H. Chatterjee, editor.Oxford, UK: Berg Publications, 21–40.

——— (2011), “Crossmodal Correspondences: A Tutorial Review,” Attention,Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 4, 971–95.

——— (2012), “Managing Sensory Expectations Concerning Products andBrands: Capitalizing on the Potential of Sound and Shape Symbolism,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 1, 37–54.

——— and Ophelia Deroy (2013), “Crossmodal Mental Imagery,” Multisen-sory Imagery, New York, NY: Springer, 157–83.

——— (2014), “Noise and its Impact on the Perception of Food and Drink,”Flavour, 3, 9.

———, Nancy M. Puccinelli, Dhruv Grewal, and Anne L. Roggeveen (2014),“Store Atmospherics: A Multisensory Perspective,” Psychology & Market-ing, 31, 7, 472–88.

———, Marianna Obrist, Carlos Velasco, and Nimesha Ranasinghe (2017),“Digitizing the Chemical Senses: Possibilities & Pitfalls,” InternationalJournal of Human-Computer Studies, 107, 62–74.

Stanley, Andrew A. and Katherine J. Kuchenbecker (2011), “Design of Body-Grounded Tactile Actuators for Playback of Human Physical Contact,” .paper presented at World Haptics Conference, IEEE, 563–8.

Statista (2016), “North America Daily Time with Internet 2016,” Retrievedfrom https://www.statista.com/statistics/645644/north-america-daily-time-per-capita-internet/.

Stein, Barry E. and Terrence R. Stanford (2008), “Multisensory Integration:Current Issues from the Perspective of the Single Neuron,” Nature ReviewsNeuroscience, 9, 4, 255.

Su, Bo-Chiuan (2008), “Characteristics of Consumer Search On-Line: HowMuch Do We Search?” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13,1, 109–29.

Sultan, Fareena, Andrew J. Rohm, and Tao Tony Gao (2009), “FactorsInfluencing Consumer Acceptance of Mobile Marketing: A Two-CountryStudy of Youth Markets,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 4, 308–20.

Sumioka, Hidenobu, Aya Nakae, Ryota Kanai, and Hiroshi Ishiguro (2013),“Huggable Communication Medium Decreases Cortisol Levels,” ScientificReports, 3, 3034.

Sunaga, Tsutomu, Jaewoo Park, and Charles Spence (2016), “Effects ofLightness-Location Consumers' Purchase Decision-Making,” Psychology& Marketing, 33, 934–50.

Turley, Lou W. and Ronald E. Milliman (2000), “Atmospheric Effects onShopping Behavior: A Review of the Experimental Evidence,” Journal ofBusiness Research, 49, 2, 193–211.

Kerrebroeck, Van, Kim Willems Helena, and Malaika Brengman (2017),“Touching the Void: Exploring Consumer Perspectives on Touch-EnablingTechnologies in Online Retailing,” International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management, 45, 7/8, 892–909.

Van Noort, Guda, Hilde A.M. Voorveld, and Eva A. Van Reijmersdal (2012),“Interactivity in Brand Web Sites: Cognitive, Affective, and BehavioralResponses Explained by Consumers' Online Flow Experience,” Journal ofInteractive Marketing, 26, 4, 223–34.

Varadarajan, Rajan, Raji Srinivasan, Gautham Gopal Vadakkepatt, Manjit S.Yadav, Paul A. Pavlou, Sandeep Krishnamurthy, and Tom Krause (2010),“Interactive Technologies and Retailing Strategy: A Review, ConceptualFramework and Future Research Directions,” Journal of InteractiveMarketing, 24, 2, 96–110.

Velasco, Carlos, Xiaoang Wan, Klemens Knoeferle, Xi Zhou, AlejandroSalgado-Montejo, and Charles Spence (2015), “Searching for Flavor Labelsin Food Products: The Influence of Color-Flavor Congruence andAssociation Strength,” Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 301.

———, Marianna Obrist, Olivia Petit, Kasun Karunanayaka, Adrian D. Cheok,and ——— (2016a), “Crossmodal Correspondences in the Context ofDigital Taste and Flavor Communications,” paper presented at CHIConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CA, USA, San Jose.

———, Andy T. Woods, ———, Adrian D. Cheok, and Charles Spence(2016b), “Crossmodal Correspondences Between Taste and Shape, andTheir Implications for Product Packaging: A Review,” Food Quality andPreference, 52, 17–26.

———, Marianna Obrist, ———, and Charles Spence (2018), “MultisensoryTechnology for Flavor Augmentation: A Mini Review,” Frontiers inPsychology, 9, 26.

Vi, Chi T., Damien Ablart, Elia Gatti, Carlos Velasco, and Marianna Obrist(2017), “Not Just Seeing, But Also Feeling Art: Mid-Air HapticExperiences Integrated in a Multisensory Art Exhibition,” InternationalJournal of Human-Computer Studies, 108, 1–14.

Vingerhoets, Guy (2014), “Contribution of the Posterior Parietal Cortex inReaching, Grasping, and Using Objects and Tools,” Frontiers inPsychology, 5, 151.

Wan, X., A. Woods, C. Velasco, J. Deng, J. Youssef, and O. Deroy (2015), “Ontasty colours and colourful tastes? Assessing, explaining, and utilizingcrossmodal correspondences between colours and basic tastes,” Flavour, 4,23.

Wan, Xiaoang, Carlos Velasco, Charles Michel, Mu BingBing, Andy T.Woods, and Charles Spence (2014), “Does the Type of ReceptacleInfluence the Crossmodal Association Between Colour And Flavour? ACross-Cultural Comparison,” Flavour, 3, 3.

Wang, Xia, Chunling Yu, and Yujie Wei (2012), “Social Media PeerCommunication and Impacts on Purchase Intentions: A Consumer Social-ization Framework,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 4, 198–208.
















https://hbr.org/2017/07/how-retail-can-thrive-in-a-world-without-stores

https://hbr.org/2017/07/how-retail-can-thrive-in-a-world-without-stores















































https://www.statista.com/statistics/645644/north-america-daily-time-per-capita-internet/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/645644/north-america-daily-time-per-capita-internet/
























































Wilson, Margaret (2002), “Six Views of Embodied Cognition,” PsychonomicBulletin & Review, 9, 4, 625–36.

Wober, Mallory (1991), “The Sensotype Hypothesis,” in The Varieties ofSensory Experience: A Sourcebook in the Anthropology of the Senses. D.Howes, editor. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 31–42.

Woods, Andy T. and Charles Spence (2016), “Using Single Colors and Color Pairsto Communicate Basic Tastes,” i-Perception, 7, 4 2041669516658817.

Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon, Shu-Chuan Chu, and Paul L. Sauer (2017), “IsAugmented Reality Technology an Effective Tool for e-Commerce? AnInteractivity and Vividness Perspective,” Journal of Interactive Marketing,39, 89–103.

Zampini, Massimiliano and Charles Spence (2004), “The Role of AuditoryCues in Modulating the Perceived Crispness and Staleness of Potato Chips,”Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, 5, 347–63.















Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies ......Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating...

Documents

Transcript of Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies ......Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating...